Dear Kirk

[HomerChampless]

But what if your hypothetical sack happens after the clocking? Then it it 3rd and how long? Are we going to clock it again? Then it is 4th and how long?

What if CJ got tackled (for loss, even) on one of those 3 runs? I don't think you have a point. Last time out spent on a tackle after a run that didn't earn a first down.

And the staff had to shuffle the FG team onto the field without a time out? Are you kidding me?

 

[deanvogs]

Not clocking it cost them 6 or 7 seconds which is enough time to run 1 more play. There is no debating that. The question is, is it worth losing 1st down to give yourself enough time to run that 1 extra play. With the amount of time left I think Kirk made the right decision. If there were 10 seconds less on the game clock, you would have to clock it.

Do the math PC. Iowa ran 4 plays by not clocking (the non clocking play, 2nd and 3rd downs and kicked a FG). If Iowa clocks the ball it takes 2 seconds roughly to do so as you have to have all your players set. Now there is 21 seconds left and I defy even you to argue that you could run 5 plays in that time (4 plays and a FG). That is what you would have to do in order to run more plays than Iowa ran (3 plays and a FG) by not clocking it.

You do understand that Iowa ran a play instead of clocking it don't you? That is the extra play right there that you "claim you gain". Yet you don't "gain" a play at all, the only thing you do is now run a play after clocking it, that you could have run INSTEAD of clocking it. It doesn't gain you a play at all actually. I have asked about 10 times now, can anyone arguing that Iowa clock that play explain to me how they could possibly run 4 plays and a FG in 21 second (one more plan than they ran by not clocking it)?? The maximum number of plays that were going to be run is 3 + the FG

 

[HomerChampless]

Is it because you don't want the Iowa staff to venture into territory it's not accustomed (competent) of being in, Deanvogs? Like calling multiple plays and getting them in before the play clock expires? You understand most passes take less time than runs to execute (and gain more yardage) and incompletions and first downs stop the clock?

How many seconds left the game clock on the 3 occasions where CJ took the snap, dropped back and then ran to the LOS? Conservatively, 3-4 seconds each? And you're worried about losing 2 seconds on a clock???

 

[hawkinn3]

Just because you call all in with 2-7 off and hit a full house on the river doesn't mean you made the right call. Long term, bad strategy will get you.

 

[User]

See. This board isn't about the free flow of ideas. It's about the free flow of certain ideas.

What I can't figure out, it seems to me winning isn't the number one goal of each Iowa fan.

The premise of this thread was that a clear mistake was made in clock management. It was supported by what I believe to be incorrect math when stating that seven seconds were lost. The clock was started with 24 seconds and the ball snapped at 19 seconds, which is 5 seconds where no play is being ran. If you were to clock the ball, you would lose at least 1 second (easily could be 2 seconds to get everyone set first). So at most, not clocking the ball cost Iowa 4 seconds, or possibly 3, plus you lose a down. It also brings in the variables of having more time to decide your next play and to make substitutions for both teams. I believe people would be much more receptive to discuss the merits of the idea that clocking the ball would have been a better decision than not had it been presented in a factual and respectful way. Instead, not only was a false premise used as a base of the argument, but then that same premise was used to make personal attacks on the head coach.

 

[deanvogs]

Is it because you don't want the Iowa staff to venture into territory it's not accustomed (competent) of being in, Deanvogs? Like calling multiple plays and getting them in before the play clock expires? You understand most passes take less time than runs to execute (and gain more yardage) and incompletions and first downs stop the clock?

How many seconds left the game clock on the 3 occasions where CJ took the snap, dropped back and then ran pass the LOS? Conservatively, 2 seconds each?

Huh?

If Iowa clocks the ball at 21 seconds, and then runs the next play and it take 6 seconds, they have 15 seconds left. Iowa didn't clock the ball, ran the play and had 15 seconds left after running that play NOT clocking the ball.....

Clocking the ball didn't gain them 6 seconds, it is the exact same thing, and some can't get it through their thick skulls. Iowa ran a play instead of clocking it and had 15 seconds after that to run 2 more plays. If you clock the ball at 21 seconds, then run your play, that play will take on avg. about 6 seconds and you would have 15 seconds remaining that way as well.

LOLOL at those who think clocking the ball in this case gave Iowa an extra play.

 

[doughudd]

Listen to cjb's post game audio...unless you think he's a liar, the hawks work on this all the time in practice. They ran it the way they practice it. Comparing this to the cap one play is actually appropriate..say we go to spike it and there is a procedure penalty...clock winds when ball is ready for play and even more time runs off the clock. Be thankful in the improvements thst led to us actually having a timeout left to use to have a chance at a FG attempt.

Didn't Rudock do that last year? Spike the ball before the line was set and we got the penalty.

 

[PCHawk]

Do the math PC. Iowa ran 4 plays by not clocking (the non clocking play, 2nd and 3rd downs and kicked a FG). If Iowa clocks the ball it takes 2 seconds roughly to do so as you have to have all your players set. Now there is 21 seconds left and I defy even you to argue that you could run 5 plays in that time (4 plays and a FG). That is what you would have to do in order to run more plays than Iowa ran (3 plays and a FG) by not clocking it.You do understand that Iowa ran a play instead of clocking it don't you? That is the extra play right there that you "claim you gain". Yet you don't "gain" a play at all, the only thing you do is now run a play after clocking it, that you could have run INSTEAD of clocking it. It doesn't gain you a play at all actually. I have asked about 10 times now, can anyone arguing that Iowa clock that play explain to me how they could possibly run 4 plays and a FG in 21 second (one more plan than they ran by not clocking it)?? The maximum number of plays that were going to be run is 3 + the FG

If they clock it and save 5 seconds, they could have run all the plays they did and still have 7 seconds left. 7 seconds is enough time for a quick out as long as you get out of bounds. That would be your 1 more play.

 

[PCHawk]

Huh?

If Iowa clocks the ball at 21 seconds, and then runs the next play and it take 6 seconds, they have 15 seconds left. Iowa didn't clock the ball, ran the play and had 15 seconds left after running that play NOT clocking the ball.....

Clocking the ball didn't gain them 6 seconds, it is the exact same thing, and some can't get it through their thick skulls. Iowa ran a play instead of clocking it and had 15 seconds after that to run 2 more plays. If you clock the ball at 21 seconds, then run your play, that play will take on avg. about 6 seconds and you would have 15 seconds remaining that way as well.

LOLOL at those who think clocking the ball in this case gave Iowa an extra play.

Are you drunk Dean? You must be having a big brain fart or something.

 

[RocknRollface]

Do the math PC. Iowa ran 4 plays by not clocking (the non clocking play, 2nd and 3rd downs and kicked a FG). If Iowa clocks the ball it takes 2 seconds roughly to do so as you have to have all your players set. Now there is 21 seconds left and I defy even you to argue that you could run 5 plays in that time (4 plays and a FG). That is what you would have to do in order to run more plays than Iowa ran (3 plays and a FG) by not clocking it.

You do understand that Iowa ran a play instead of clocking it don't you? That is the extra play right there that you "claim you gain". Yet you don't "gain" a play at all, the only thing you do is now run a play after clocking it, that you could have run INSTEAD of clocking it. It doesn't gain you a play at all actually. I have asked about 10 times now, can anyone arguing that Iowa clock that play explain to me how they could possibly run 4 plays and a FG in 21 second (one more plan than they ran by not clocking it)?? The maximum number of plays that were going to be run is 3 + the FG

Number of plays is not the issue.

You can gain any number of yards in any number of plays.

You're over thinking it.

Its as simple as this you always protect the clock when possible, or at least thats conventional wisdom.

It worked out but it was not the ideal way to get there.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Painful thread. Very Interesting, but painful.

There is very little, thus far, to complain about regarding play, coaching, or certainly results. So we get 9 pages about +/- 4-7 seconds and maybe 1 more play(depending on many factors).

There is logic on both sides, neither is absolutely wrong or right. What has been reasoned and thought out and argued in the last 24 hours needed to be decided and acted upon in seconds.

Hey, if this is the worst thing we have to debate this year, I'll take it.

No one can argue this staff has history of bad clock/game management, and it has cost us games. That said, in both the end of the first half vs. ISU and the end of this game...the fact there is actually any viable, logical argument in favor of how the staff managed the time...that alone speaks volumes...that...and the fact...you know...we won.

And yes, there is logic that supports both decisions.

 

[CP87]

If you watch enough football, you will realize KF isn't the only one. In KF's defense I am amazed at how many coaches struggle with this. Given the amount of time situational football is practiced you would think it would be better.

Which goes to show you how hard these snap-decisions are in the heat of the moment. The individuals who have risen to the top of this highly competitive, lucratively compensated field routinely make mistakes in clock-management. It seems most fans come to the conclusion that all of these coaches are idiots, as opposed to the much more reasonable conclusion that what they are doing is really hard to get right 100% of the time.

 

[deanvogs]

Number of plays is not the issue.

You can gain any number of yards in any number of plays.

You're over thinking it.

Its as simple as this you always protect the clock when possible, or at least thats conventional wisdom.

It worked out but it was not the ideal way to get there.

You are not thinking enough about it. Why do teams go no huddle? Well because there are a ton of advantages to it. If Iowa clocks that ball, they lose every advantage gained by going no huddle. Now the defense can substitute, the D can have more time to decide to dial up a blitz, the D can reset, the D can get their bearings back.

For the 3 seconds that might have been save (yes PC only 3 seconds at tops were saved as you can't clock the ball without 2 seconds or so coming off the clock) it just isn't worth it. Giving away every advantage for that 3 seconds is silly.

I will admit that when it happened I was like, why didn't they spike the ball. Then when I thought about it, I realized it was a strategy decision, and it was decided that 3 seconds weren't worth giving up the advantage that Iowa had in the no huddle hurry up offense. I think it was the right call, and that was proven on the field. Unfortunately you are arguing a theory (theory being time is more valuable than offensive advantage)

There is no way to know if you are correct, the funny thing is many want to say they are MORE correct than the ultimate outcome which was getting exactly what they were trying to get......a game winning FG.

 

[deanvogs]

Are you drunk Dean? You must be having a big brain fart or something.

Iowa ran a play without clocking the ball and it took 9 seconds. You are claiming that you can clock the ball, and then run your next play in 4 seconds, and then have an extra 5 seconds to spare for an additional play. LOL, and you are asking if I am drunk??

 

[PCHawk]

Iowa ran a play without clocking the ball and it took 9 seconds. You are claiming that you can clock the ball, and then run your next play in 4 seconds, and then have an extra 5 seconds to spare for an additional play. LOL, and you are asking if I am drunk??

If we agree that clocking the ball saved 4 seconds and we agree that there was 2 seconds left after we ran the 3 plays, that means we agree that there would have been 6 seconds left if we clocked it. 6 seconds is definitely enough time to run a quick play.

 

[HomerChampless]

I guess we could argue this forever. Isn't there an advantage to be gained for Iowa if this staff can master the rudiments of clock management late in games? I guess I'll let it go.

 

[HomerChampless]

If we agree that clocking the ball saved 4 seconds and we agree that there was 2 seconds left after we ran the 3 plays, that means we agree that there would have been 6 seconds left if we clocked it. 6 seconds is definitely enough time to run a quick play.

No, I couldn't let it go.

One extra play that is a quick out that gets out of bounds or is incomplete. BTW, a less than 57 yard field goal has a better chance of being made than a 57 yard field goal. Thank goodness there was no wind in Marshall's face.

 

[DP5555]

So let's say Ferentz "figured out" these clock management issues that some of you are trying to substantiate.

Then what would you complain about? Seems like you're the crowd who will always find something. It's pretty clear KF has changed damn near everything about his program that the fans wanted him to change, but there's always this minority crowd of people who will find something.

 

[PCHawk]

Getting the play in and snapping the ball as quick as they did was impressive though. Normally 10-12 seconds would probably run off there. If that would have happened we would probably all be agreeing that they should have clocked it. But it didn't so it could go both ways. Which again, if it could go either way, it wasn't a mistake.

 

[PCHawk]

No, I couldn't let it go.

One extra play that is a quick out that gets out of bounds or is incomplete. BTW, a less than 57 yard field goal has a better chance of being made than a 57 yard field goal. Thank goodness there was no wind in Marshall's face.

If he would have clocked it and everything went the exact same way, Kirk would have had a tough decision. Run 1 more play on 4th down with 6 seconds left and try to get a little closer (obviously have to get enough to get a 1st down ) or kick the field goal right there. I think he probably kicks it from there.